At top left is Robert Wadden, the chair of the hearing panel in this case against Mr. Gouveia. In the middle is Aslam Daud and to the right is Susan T. McGrath members of the Law Society Hearing panel. Mr. Gouveia was absent in this trial and did not have counsel there to represent him.
I find this case to be interesting because of the outcome. Before I give a spoiler alert, let me tell you what he did. Mr. Gouveia was a lawyer who had started practising in 2001. He had filed Annual reports until 2008. He was charged with Professional Misconduct by Abandoning his Practice under s. 33 of the Law Society Act. When I read that, I find it hard to believe that a lawyer would abandon his/her practice since they usually get paid handsomely from the services they provide. In doing so, he left a lot of angry clients behind and failed to communicate with the Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC).
In 2009, he failed to file his Annual report and was suspended by the LSUC. He met with several clients during the next two years and failed to mention that he was suspended. In many instants, he had won cases for his clients and the money had been paid into his trustee account. When they tried to contact him, he was unreachable. Some clients ultimately showed up to his practice and demanded their money in which he replied it would be transferred. It never was and he seemed to disappear off the face of the planet. These clients (5 in total) decided to file complaints against him. The LSUC attempted to get in contact with him and were unsuccessful because Mr. Gouveia failed to provide any contact information about his place of residence. All efforts to contact him (cell phone, email, mailing, looking up his registered license plate for an address) all came back unsuccessful.
The hearing--despite the fact that Mr.Gouveia was not present--was held and the panel found that he was ungovernable and ordered that his license be revoked and that he pay $15,165.44 within one year of the order in which interest of 3% per annum would be accrued.
My main concern is if they can't find him, how do they expect him to pay. I think that he should have had harsher penalties. He should have to pay his clients, pay the Law Society and pay their legal fees on top of having his license revoked. Clearly he has no regard for his clients and the panel should have made an example out of him.
What, if any, penalties do you think Mr. Gouveia should face? If you click on the link to the case found in the word practice, do you think that the Law Society exhausted all of their options in trying to reach Mr. Gouveia?
Information from this case Law Society of Upper Canada v. Joseph Rebelson Gouveia, 2012 ONLSHP 0117
Well, there are few repercussions that would be as severe as a criminal investigation. Furthermore, suspension is not as vivid as revocation, perhaps litigants need to have a greater responsibility in the interest of client interests.
ReplyDeleteWhy was he able practice when his license was suspended? Is there no system that checked a lawyers credentials before allow them to participate in a case?
ReplyDeleteCould he be in a witness protection program? Is he on the run from mob?
I think the judgement is a bit hasty... They need more information.
He wasn't allowed to practice but he did so anyway. There should be a system to stop lawyers from doing whatever they want but that is why they have the Law Society Hearing Panel to punish the offenders and rule breakers.
DeleteThe clients were abandoned and their money taken. As well as the fact that he abandoned an obligation to uphold justice. As someone who supposedly knows the in's and out's of law shouldn't the punishment be harsher?
ReplyDelete- TLT
I think it should be.
DeleteSomeone (or a few people) have apparently dropped the ball...
ReplyDelete1. intial checks
2. follow up
3. annual checks
punishment for these types of violations should have harsher punishment
I think at the point where Mr. Gouveia collected payments to his trustee account for cases where he represented clients and won and did not disperse the funds to those clients the case became criminal. Unless the commission can file a criminal case against him there is not much else I can think of.
ReplyDeleteFailure to disburse funds in a Trust account is not the same thing as theft. The Law Society would have taken over the Trust account and disbursed the monies accordingly. There is no criminal offence of abandoning one's practice and failing to disburse funds.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the proper thing to have done when a lawyer or suspended lawyer fails to respond to the Law Society is to follow-up with an on-site audit rather than to wait to commence an application against the lawyer.